TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Does the RAV4 EV 103 mile EPA range suggest anything about Model S 40 kwh range?

Discussion in 'Model S: Battery & Charging' started by ddruz, Sep 20, 2012.

  1. ddruz

    ddruz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    Messages:
    673
    Location:
    North Shore Oahu, HI
    EPA range on the RAV4 EV is officially 103 miles. It has a 41.8 kwh battery, bigger than Model S' 40 kwh. It supposedly uses the same drive train as the Model S. It certainly is not as aerodynamic. But it might weigh less. This has me a bit confused about expected Model S 40 khw range.

    Given the Model S 85 kwh battery's 300 mile range at 55 mph and 265 miles EPA range, the same ratio for the 40 kwh battery's publicized 160 miles at 55 mph results in a 141 mile EPA range estimate.

    Do people think any valid comparisons can be drawn or estimations made for Model S 40 kwh ranges based on the RAV4 EV? Could Models S 40 kwh range fall short of expectations even at a steady 55 mph? Why is the RAV4 EV EPA range so low with the same drive train and bigger battery? I'd appreciate any well considered thoughts on the matter.
     
  2. efusco

    efusco Moderator - Model S & X forums

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,590
    Location:
    Nixa, Missouri, United States
    I wouldn't worry too much about it. Real world range of the Rav4 EV is going to be quite a bit better than the EPA number and likely much closer to 140 miles (which had been achieved in the test vehicle I got to drive). We thrashed our vehicle, hard and still drove ~90 miles and had 38 miles of range showing on the screen.

    With the S being designed ground up for this drive train (rather than added onto an existing body structure like the Rav 4) and the better aerodynamics I'm sure that 140-160 will be achievable.
     
  3. aviators99

    aviators99 Model S - R140

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,453
    Location:
    Weston, Florida, United States
    Hmm...The Model S EPA range is within 1-2% of what people are getting in the real world, so personally I would definitely make some assumptions based on that. But the aerodynamic efficiency is probably far, far worse on the Rav4 than the S40 so it will make a material difference. Based on the ratio you point out, and the loss of some battery efficiency from a narrower range of the most efficient SOC, I'm going to guess 125 on a range charge, and 100 on a standard charge.
     
  4. efusco

    efusco Moderator - Model S & X forums

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,590
    Location:
    Nixa, Missouri, United States
    They got the Cd down to .30 on the Rav4 EV, so it's worse, but not terrible.
     
  5. aviators99

    aviators99 Model S - R140

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,453
    Location:
    Weston, Florida, United States
    That's pretty impressive. Did they make some noticeable body changes? While I wait for my S85, I'm driving my son's Rav4 V6, so it's hard for me to imagine it doing that well.

    If that's the case, I'm less optimistic than the numbers I quoted above for the range of the S40.
     
  6. efusco

    efusco Moderator - Model S & X forums

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,590
    Location:
    Nixa, Missouri, United States
    Minor noticable changes...
    They were able to smooth the bottom b/c of the battery and lack of exhaust/drive train, etc.
    They extended the rear spoiler
    They changed the side rear view mirrors to a more aero shape
    They redisigned the front grill a little bit
    They added some wheel spats that made a differenct.
     
  7. TEG

    TEG TMC Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    17,252
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    Nice recap, efusco.
     
  8. Todd Burch

    Todd Burch Electron Pilot

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    4,734
    Location:
    Smithfield, VA
    Remember that even though the Cd dropped to 0.30, the frontal area is still considerably larger than the Model S, which can have a significant impact on energy consumption.
     
  9. aviators99

    aviators99 Model S - R140

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,453
    Location:
    Weston, Florida, United States
    How so?
     
  10. Incredulocious

    Incredulocious '11 LEAF –> '13 RAV4 EV

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2012
    Messages:
    132
    Location:
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Much of what you're experiencing with the V6 RAV4 is because of the V6. I got a 2009 4 cylinder version of the RAV4 specifically for the great mileage compared to similar AWD vehicles — and yet it has plenty of power. (2009 was the first year with the new, improved 4 cylinder engine.)

    Anyway, there's a Toyota video that details some of the aerodynamic changes they made to improve efficiency:
    2012 Toyota RAV4 EV - Reducing The Coefficient Of Drag - YouTube

    - - - Updated - - -

    You have to multiply the drag coefficient against the frontal area to get the total effect. The coefficient alone isn't enough.

    For comparison results, skip over the table of Cd's and down to the CdA table ("Drag Area"):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient
     
  11. aviators99

    aviators99 Model S - R140

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,453
    Location:
    Weston, Florida, United States
    #11 aviators99, Sep 20, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2012
    I was just referring to the shape, which I believe is the same for V6 and V4 (before you schooled me in the fact that the front profile to which I was referring is *combined* with the cd and is not part of the cd). Btw, we did test drive the V4 (2011) and found it way too sluggish to let my son drive. The MPG difference is only 4. Nonetheless, in 10 months since I bought it for him, I have not seen another V6 on the road!


    Very informative. Thanks.
     
  12. Brian H

    Brian H Banned

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    898
    You need to allow about 6 months of usage before people stop driving like cowboys for fun; in beta testing, daily users were getting 5-10% more than the nameplate range. Also, the EPA city numbers are ludicrous. They're actually lower than highway, like an ICE! In the 5-cycle, all starts were jackrabbit, all stops were hard braking. Nothing could be further from actual city use. The city MPGe should probably be 50% higher, at least.
     
  13. Sacrament055

    Sacrament055 Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2012
    Messages:
    96
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    A recently posted NY Times article describes the 40 KWh battery as having 130 Miles of real world range as compared tot he 60 KWh having around 175 miles of real world range If those numbers are accurate there is only a 45 mile difference between the 40 and 60 KWh batteries.
    One Big Step for Tesla, One Giant Leap for E.V.’s - NYTimes.com
     
  14. CapitalistOppressor

    CapitalistOppressor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,621
    He based those numbers on the actual results he got with the RAV4 EV. ~100 mile EPA number is much lower than the NY Times experienced.

    Reviewing the Toyota RAV4 EV - NYTimes.com
     
  15. dsinned

    dsinned Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Messages:
    9
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    I'm getting as much as 135 miles extended range in my 2012 RAV4 EV, and if I really pushed it as far as hypermiling beforehand to jack up the car's learned driving efficiency, I feel confident I could get real close to 150 miles. out of an extended charge from the full 41.8kWh of usable battery capacity.
     

Share This Page